On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 10:15:37AM +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> Thanks for the patch. It sounds right, so no objections from me. But I
> wonder if something similar has to be done also for
> index_concurrently_swap function?
As of index.c, this already happens:
/* Preserve indisreplident in t
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 11:57:21AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> I think that this problem is similar to indisclustered, and that we
> had better set indisreplident to false when clearing indisvalid for an
> index concurrently dropped. This would prevent problems with ALTER
> TABLE of course
Hi all,
While digging into a different patch involving DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY
and replica indexes, I have found that the handling of indisreplident
is inconsistent for invalid indexes:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200827022835.gm2...@paquier.xyz
In short, imagine the following sequenc
